Hierarchy of Road Users - 29th January 2022

zagfles

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

NBLondon said:

zagfles said:

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

I think that's rather optimistic...    I think filters are safer - as long as all involved pay attention.

And will the hierarchy actually be applied to the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks?

Sigh

Given you're in or from London, you would presumably be aware of TfL. A study they did of all incidents over 10 years where someone was killed or seriously injured as a result of a road user jumping a red light showed 71% were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes (typically a person is killed by a bike on average slightly less than once a year). Not stopping for red lights, zebras, even ignoring give way on roundabouts etc is routine with drivers, along with drunk driving, driving while using the phone etc. 40 pedestrians are killed, on average, every year on the pavement alone by drivers.

In the hierarchy of things, it's based on harm, a bike can easily stop and swerve, so while I don't condone red light jumping riders (BOBs) / cyclists, they're not the real risk to pedestrians

Sigh

Why do we always get this defensive whataboutery whenever bad cyclists are mentioned? Yes, it's blatently obvious that if you disregard the rules of the road in a one ton metal box you're going do far more harm than if you're on a 10kg bike. That doesn't mean cyclists who disregard the rules are immune from criticism, just because doing it in a car is far worse. That would be a bit like getting defensive when burglars are criticised because murderers are far worse.

It is OK to criticise something even if other things are far worse.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

Nope.

Getting into dictionary definitions never ends well, but the majority of online dictionaries say "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

NBLondon was doing no such thing. No attempt whatsoever to deflect from or justify bad driving, he/she wasn't responding to an accusation or difficult question, but merely asking if the same rules would apply to cyclists, as he/she has suffered physical harm from bad cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road.

But the reply from Farfetch was clearly a counter-accusation to the accusation against bad cyclists. AKA 'whataboutery'

Sigh (I can do it too!)

Not remotely interested in your dictionary definition. You're also being selective in your quoting and the context and tone of NB's initial post. It was clearly inflammatory and deliberately so. The figures quoted by Farfetch also clearly (and always do) show that the issue is blown out of all proportion - why did NB even mention it? Of course the hierarchy will address that - it's the point!

I see very poor cycling in London from time to time. I'm sure NB has had bad experiences - I have. The whole purpose of the new hierarchy is to ensure responsibility lies with those likely to and do cause the greatest harm - we know that is most definitely not cyclists running red lights. 

It clearly wasn't unless you have a persecution complex. The complaint was about "the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks" and from later posts it appears NB has been injured by such cyclists.

Why is that inflammatory? It's specifically about cyclists who cycle badly, not all cyclists, and who nobody appears to condone. Do you think cyclists who go through red lights are OK? Farfetch doesn't "...so while I don't condone red light jumping riders...". So why the knee-jerk leap to their defence with whataboutery about bad motorists being far more dangerous (duh, really?).

As a motorist, I would never leap to the defence of bad motorists just because other crimes (eg genocide, to take a ridiculous example) are worse.

Nofinway

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

NBLondon said:

zagfles said:

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

I think that's rather optimistic...    I think filters are safer - as long as all involved pay attention.

And will the hierarchy actually be applied to the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks?

Sigh

Given you're in or from London, you would presumably be aware of TfL. A study they did of all incidents over 10 years where someone was killed or seriously injured as a result of a road user jumping a red light showed 71% were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes (typically a person is killed by a bike on average slightly less than once a year). Not stopping for red lights, zebras, even ignoring give way on roundabouts etc is routine with drivers, along with drunk driving, driving while using the phone etc. 40 pedestrians are killed, on average, every year on the pavement alone by drivers.

In the hierarchy of things, it's based on harm, a bike can easily stop and swerve, so while I don't condone red light jumping riders (BOBs) / cyclists, they're not the real risk to pedestrians

Sigh

Why do we always get this defensive whataboutery whenever bad cyclists are mentioned? Yes, it's blatently obvious that if you disregard the rules of the road in a one ton metal box you're going do far more harm than if you're on a 10kg bike. That doesn't mean cyclists who disregard the rules are immune from criticism, just because doing it in a car is far worse. That would be a bit like getting defensive when burglars are criticised because murderers are far worse.

It is OK to criticise something even if other things are far worse.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

Nope.

Getting into dictionary definitions never ends well, but the majority of online dictionaries say "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

NBLondon was doing no such thing. No attempt whatsoever to deflect from or justify bad driving, he/she wasn't responding to an accusation or difficult question, but merely asking if the same rules would apply to cyclists, as he/she has suffered physical harm from bad cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road.

But the reply from Farfetch was clearly a counter-accusation to the accusation against bad cyclists. AKA 'whataboutery'

Sigh (I can do it too!)

Not remotely interested in your dictionary definition. You're also being selective in your quoting and the context and tone of NB's initial post. It was clearly inflammatory and deliberately so. The figures quoted by Farfetch also clearly (and always do) show that the issue is blown out of all proportion - why did NB even mention it? Of course the hierarchy will address that - it's the point!

I see very poor cycling in London from time to time. I'm sure NB has had bad experiences - I have. The whole purpose of the new hierarchy is to ensure responsibility lies with those likely to and do cause the greatest harm - we know that is most definitely not cyclists running red lights. 

It clearly wasn't unless you have a persecution complex. The complaint was about "the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks" and from later posts it appears NB has been injured by such cyclists.

Why is that inflammatory? It's specifically about cyclists who cycle badly, not all cyclists, and who nobody appears to condone. Do you think cyclists who go through red lights are OK? Farfetch doesn't "...so while I don't condone red light jumping riders...". So why the knee-jerk leap to their defence with whataboutery about bad motorists being far more dangerous (duh, really?).

As a motorist, I would never leap to the defence of bad motorists just because other crimes (eg genocide, to take a ridiculous example) are worse.

You're misquoting again plus are you living on the moon?

Earlier in this thread there is a poster (Grey critic) who trots out the usual 'cyclist running red light' nonsense - it is endemic in any article or post about this type of thing, including NB London. It is totally unnecessary and deliberately inflammatory - as I said why even mention it? 

zagfles

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Deleted_User said:

NBLondon said:

zagfles said:

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

I think that's rather optimistic...    I think filters are safer - as long as all involved pay attention.

And will the hierarchy actually be applied to the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks?

Sigh

Given you're in or from London, you would presumably be aware of TfL. A study they did of all incidents over 10 years where someone was killed or seriously injured as a result of a road user jumping a red light showed 71% were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes (typically a person is killed by a bike on average slightly less than once a year). Not stopping for red lights, zebras, even ignoring give way on roundabouts etc is routine with drivers, along with drunk driving, driving while using the phone etc. 40 pedestrians are killed, on average, every year on the pavement alone by drivers.

In the hierarchy of things, it's based on harm, a bike can easily stop and swerve, so while I don't condone red light jumping riders (BOBs) / cyclists, they're not the real risk to pedestrians

Sigh

Why do we always get this defensive whataboutery whenever bad cyclists are mentioned? Yes, it's blatently obvious that if you disregard the rules of the road in a one ton metal box you're going do far more harm than if you're on a 10kg bike. That doesn't mean cyclists who disregard the rules are immune from criticism, just because doing it in a car is far worse. That would be a bit like getting defensive when burglars are criticised because murderers are far worse.

It is OK to criticise something even if other things are far worse.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

Nope.

Getting into dictionary definitions never ends well, but the majority of online dictionaries say "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

NBLondon was doing no such thing. No attempt whatsoever to deflect from or justify bad driving, he/she wasn't responding to an accusation or difficult question, but merely asking if the same rules would apply to cyclists, as he/she has suffered physical harm from bad cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road.

But the reply from Farfetch was clearly a counter-accusation to the accusation against bad cyclists. AKA 'whataboutery'

Sigh (I can do it too!)

Not remotely interested in your dictionary definition. You're also being selective in your quoting and the context and tone of NB's initial post. It was clearly inflammatory and deliberately so. The figures quoted by Farfetch also clearly (and always do) show that the issue is blown out of all proportion - why did NB even mention it? Of course the hierarchy will address that - it's the point!

I see very poor cycling in London from time to time. I'm sure NB has had bad experiences - I have. The whole purpose of the new hierarchy is to ensure responsibility lies with those likely to and do cause the greatest harm - we know that is most definitely not cyclists running red lights. 

It clearly wasn't unless you have a persecution complex. The complaint was about "the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks" and from later posts it appears NB has been injured by such cyclists.

Why is that inflammatory? It's specifically about cyclists who cycle badly, not all cyclists, and who nobody appears to condone. Do you think cyclists who go through red lights are OK? Farfetch doesn't "...so while I don't condone red light jumping riders...". So why the knee-jerk leap to their defence with whataboutery about bad motorists being far more dangerous (duh, really?).

As a motorist, I would never leap to the defence of bad motorists just because other crimes (eg genocide, to take a ridiculous example) are worse.

You're misquoting again plus are you living on the moon?

Earlier in this thread there is a poster (Grey critic) who trots out the usual 'cyclist running red light' nonsense - it is endemic in any article or post about this type of thing, including NB London. It is totally unnecessary and deliberately inflammatory - as I said why even mention it? 

What have I misquoted? I cut and pasted! As for NB, it seems he's been injured by bad cyclists. Is that OK? Or can it never be mentioned? Maybe you should avoid the internet if you think people complaining about bad cyclists who injure people is "inflammatory". Or do you think cyclists jumping red lights and ignoring zebra crossings is OK? It's an argument, but not one offered so far by anyone. Just the strawman argument that it's not as bad as motorists doing the same (which nobody has disputed, hence a strawman).

Sea_Shell

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry...

What about turning left on a green filter light, when pedestrians are waiting to cross the side road, which isn't controlled by the lights (crossing).

We have a notorious spot in town which has a light controlled crossing directly after a blind left (light controlled but not synched) turn and that causes the junction to back up, beeps and near misses.

Without the crossing lights it would be much worse.

zagfles

Sea_Shell said:

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry...

What about turning left on a green filter light, when pedestrians are waiting to cross the side road, which isn't controlled by the lights (crossing).

We have a notorious spot in town which has a light controlled crossing directly after a blind left (light controlled but not synched) turn and that causes the junction to back up, beeps and near misses.

Without the crossing lights it would be much worse.

I would have thought it'd only be worse if pedestrian numbers are heavy, in which case they'd probably keep the crossing.

Sea_Shell

zagfles said:

Sea_Shell said:

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry...

What about turning left on a green filter light, when pedestrians are waiting to cross the side road, which isn't controlled by the lights (crossing).

We have a notorious spot in town which has a light controlled crossing directly after a blind left (light controlled but not synched) turn and that causes the junction to back up, beeps and near misses.

Without the crossing lights it would be much worse.

I would have thought it'd only be worse if pedestrian numbers are heavy, in which case they'd probably keep the crossing.

Sorry, I meant junctions currently without a crossing on the side road.

I mentioned the other one, as an example, as it's a problem already.

Having to stop after your light has gone green already causes problems, when there IS a light.   Having to stop out of "judgement" of whether a person is about to cross could cause even more confusion.

NBLondon

Nofinway said:

Earlier in this thread there is a poster (Grey critic) who trots out the usual 'cyclist running red light' nonsense - it is endemic in any article or post about this type of thing, including NB London. It is totally unnecessary and deliberately inflammatory - as I said why even mention it? 

Sigh....

The topic was the hierarchy of road users - where pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists.  So the question of whether cyclists will now be expected to change their behaviour to avoid endangering and injuring pedestrians is perfectly valid. The majority of reasonable cyclists won't need to; the minority of anti-social cyclists will probably carry on as before.

I was expecting the knee-jerk reaction before too long though 

TripleH

I have only had an issue with cyclists in 2 locations for the same reason in my life. London and Cairns, Queensland.

Both instances I have been a pedestrian on the pavement and coped abuse from a cyclist because I was deemed in their way as they speed along the pavement (no bell used).

I have had no issues with cyclists on the road as yet. I have with pedestrians standing in the middle of the road taking photos round a bend. (Victoria, tourists this time). I only knew to go slow round that bend because I'd been before in that area and warned there were Koalas in the tree. 

zagfles

Sea_Shell said:

zagfles said:

Sea_Shell said:

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry...

What about turning left on a green filter light, when pedestrians are waiting to cross the side road, which isn't controlled by the lights (crossing).

We have a notorious spot in town which has a light controlled crossing directly after a blind left (light controlled but not synched) turn and that causes the junction to back up, beeps and near misses.

Without the crossing lights it would be much worse.

I would have thought it'd only be worse if pedestrian numbers are heavy, in which case they'd probably keep the crossing.

Sorry, I meant junctions currently without a crossing on the side road.

I mentioned the other one, as an example, as it's a problem already.

Having to stop after your light has gone green already causes problems, when there IS a light.   Having to stop out of "judgement" of whether a person is about to cross could cause even more confusion.

It may take some getting used to, but it's the way it works in most of Europe and doesn't seem to cause problems. It makes it far more efficient as you can give both cars and pedestrians who are walking/driving in the same direction the green light/green man. 

Marvel1

molerat said:

Car_54 said:

neilmcl said:

molerat said:

ArchLen said:

Car_54 said:

... learners are by and large not now taught to use the parking brake, this would probably result in a fail if they did not have an automatic parking brake because they probably won't react in time to prevent a pedestrian or vehicle behind being rolled into. 

That is one example but there are many more. 

What makes you think that?
Do you have recent experience of lessons and/or tests?

Yes, over 2 decades of experience in the industry. A good instructor will still teach appropriate use of the parking brake but the majority will not as DVSA no longer consider it's lack of use as a fault. 

Interestingly this is something I commented on in the car recently after having sat behind a couple of driving school cars sitting on the footbrake whilst at traffic lights.

Could they have been in an Automatic though?

Why would that make a difference?

I don't really care what sort of gearbox they have but I find sitting behind a car at night with 3 brake lights glaring at you quite annoying. (and I know those particular local driving school cars are not auto)

Especially at a drive thru.